Supreme Court rules ex-presidents have immunity for official acts

Post by torstenvl » Mon, Jul 01, 2024, 10:38 PM UTC

monetus wrote: post #750

ensignavenger wrote: post #731

Earlier quoted context omitted.

How do you conclude that? It is my understanding that the Nixon tapes were recordings of conversations Nixon had with campaign staff as a candidate, and as the Supreme Court held, actions taken as a candidate are not official actions and are therefore not subject to immunity.

Nixon still had the presidency as he ran for reelection, allowing for the argument that tapes of anyone under the Whitehouse's employ were inadmissible official acts.

Post by czl » Mon, Jul 01, 2024, 10:43 PM UTC

kristjansson wrote: post #766

throwadobe wrote: post #518

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Everyone seems to be calling this "blanket immunity" but that's not right. It's immunity for official acts which are the prerogative of the president. Basically the president is allowed to do all presidential things without having to worry about whether it will be deemed illegal. This doesn't mean that the president cannot be tried for some illegal act that was not their official duty. Murdering someone, for example.

That's not quite it. There's absolute ('blanket') immunity for acts that exclusively reserved for the president (vetos, pardons, etc.). There's presumptive immunity for other 'official acts', but that doesn't preclude the possibility that some official acts could be deemed or made illegal. There's no immunity for unofficial acts, but there's a pretty fine needle to thread in to determine an action is unofficial (if i…

Post by waciki » Mon, Jul 01, 2024, 10:44 PM UTC

Natsu wrote: post #752

_trampeltier wrote: post #636

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Since last week, bribery is legal anyway. https://www.latimes.com/world-nation/story/2024-06-26/suprem...

That article is bad. It ignores the ruling specifically pointing out that 18 USC 201 among other laws does cover 'gratuities' as well as bribes, and it misleadingly claims that "[t]he Supreme Court on Wednesday struck down part of a federal anticorruption law" when referring to 18 USC 666 (Federal Program Bribery, AKA "The Beast") which is just not true. You can see it's not true in the holding: > Held: Section 666 p…

Post by Jiro » Mon, Jul 01, 2024, 10:55 PM UTC

doctorpangloss wrote: post #215

zeroonetwothree wrote: post #4

Immunity for things they do as part of their official duties. I suppose it’s reasonable but the question will now turn to what is actually an official duty. The opposite holding, where they are liable for everything, would be untenable. Could Obama be prosecuted for ordering drone strikes that unintentionally killed two Americans? It seems like that world would hamstring the president far too much. I don’t know if th…

> Could Obama be prosecuted for ordering drone strikes that unintentionally killed two Americans? It seems like that world would hamstring the president far too much. I feel like you'd have a different opinion if it were you getting unintentionally killed!

Post by czl » Mon, Jul 01, 2024, 10:59 PM UTC

ethbr1 wrote: post #730

dagmx wrote: post #26

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I can’t defend the ruling based on the actual effects, because it puts someone above the law. However one could argue that this is the logical extension of qualified immunity for police officers which is precedent the court has already set. To be clear though, I think qualified immunity of any sort shouldn’t be allowed. It’s a subversion of any kind of fair justice.

The office of the President has always been above many laws. The redress has been assumed to be federal elections. If the President were to abuse the law (to the extent he could with the power of the executive branch), then he would be voted out of office in (max) 4 years.